It would seem some perspective on the current Israeli offensive of the Gaza Strip is merited due to the ongoing traditional media coverage discussing the situation in a way which is not holistically accurate (more below).
Examples of this include:
Report: Israel is conducting the current operation to simply protect its citizens.
http://www.salem-news.com/...
Foreign Minister Avador Lieberman said, “Israel will do everything necessary to protect the lives of its citizens..."
Reality: The number of Israelis killed due to rockets in the last two years has been one (including the recent activity). The number of Gaza Strip residents killed in the last 14 days is >200. Although the incoming projectiles form the Gaza Strip present a hazard to Israeli citizens, the quantitive amount of danger pails in comparison to the reciprocated communal punishment laid upon the Gaza Strip residents. This is further exemplified by simply comparing Palestinian dead v. Israeli dead since 2008 (Operation Cast Lead) - 14 Israelis, 1,434 Palestinians. This equates to 100x more Palestinians dead compared to the Israelis which, as FM Lieberman notes, need the protection. This data implies that, should one "side" require protection from another, it would likely be the Palestinians by two orders of magnitude.
If the killing window is expanded back to include the 2nd Intifada, the ratio is closer to 10x instead of 100x.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...
Report: Israeli's goal is to stop militancy in the Gaza Strip
Prime Minister Benjamin Nehanyahu said, ""We have repeatedly warned Hamas that this must stop and Israel's defense forces are currently acting to put an end of this once and for all..."
http://www.foxnews.com/...
Reality: Historical evidence suggests that overwhelming military force used during a asymmetrical conflict does not eliminate militancy. Quite to the contrary, the Soviet bombardment & occupation of Afghanistan, the US bombardment & occupation of Afghanistan, the US bombardment & occupation of Iraq, the US bombardment & occupation of South Vietnam, the Nazi Germany occupation of Poland, the Soviet and Nazi occupation of Ukraine, the Austro-Hungarian occupation of Bosnia, the Ottoman occupation of Greece, and even Israel's numerous incursions, bombardments, & ongoing occupation of Palestinian territories has shown that nationalistic militancy based on foreign occupation can only be eliminated by diplomatic reconciliation or complete ethnic cleansing and/or genocide. Those are the options. An argument could even be made that without concerted diplomatic efforts, nationalistic and "moderate" militancy will evolve into more radical and religiously motivated partisans. Examples here are the PLO to Hamas (which is now considered moderate to smaller, yet growing movements), the Al Nusra Front in Syria (whence the original actions were non-sectarian), IRA spinoffs during The Troubles, and the Islamic Courts to Al Shabob (with Al Shabob somehow finding a way to be more radical than the Courts).
Report: This is symmetric warfare
BBC "Israel and militants trade fresh fire as Gaza toll rises..."
http://www.bbc.com/...
Reality: As discussed above, this conflict is between two entities; one which has one of the most advanced militaries on earth and another whose primary weapon is hand made projectiles which have proven wholly ineffective. These entities are trading fire in the same sense that the Europeans traded beads to the Native American for all of New England. This is not to say that one is not a threat to the other, but the idea that there is any sense of equality between forces is not borne out by the numbers.
Conclusion: The analysis above paints a picture of a media and foreign affairs lobby which would like to depict the conflict closer to that of Cyprus, with the Turkish North and Greek South fighting a somewhat symmetrical campaign, with both sides backed by legitimate nation states. However, the situation on the ground seems to be much more akin to the pre-Srebrenica safe zones in Bosnia (with the Gazans being in a similar position to the Srebrenicians before the massacre) or to that of the Navajo in Arizona prior to the death of Narbona.
Those reading this analysis may argue that this is one sided and that the Palestinian targets are ultra radicals who must be destroyed, as they will surely destroy the wholly reasonable Israeli population. Such an argument would not consider Israel's own ultra nationalistic and radical forces. Examples here include the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, the settler movement in general, and the Jewish Home party which advocates for a state governed by Jewish law and that Jews are divinely commanded to retain control over all of historical Israel [this party controls 10% of the Israeli parliament and is currently part of the governing coalition]. These forces, while appearing more reasonable, arguably constitute as great of a threat to regional stability as do ultra religious Palestinian movements (especially considering that they are in much better access to atomic weapons).
The above argument would also assume that the Gazan's attempts to retaliate are not warranted in the least. Conversely, it could be argued that the Gazan's have just as much right to wage an asymmetrical attack as the Israeli's have to defend their territory. Paradoxically, the Israeli argument that the violence from Gaza will not stop because Hamas claims all of Israel territory is a reflection of the Palestinian argument that the Israelis will not stop building new settlements until there is no more land, as they believe that all of historical Israel is theirs. The truth on the ground is that the Israeli's are having far more success continuing to usurp Palestinian territory than the Palestinians are at defending themselves and holding on to what they have.
Under the circumstances described herein, the only solutions resulting in peace have been externally imposed imperatives for diplomacy between the parties (see Cyprus, Bosnia, and The Troubles). As it stands, no such forceful imposition of the need to negotiate is being brought to the stronger belligerent (which has considerably more to negotiate with). Alternatively, ethnic cleansing has been shown to be effective (see the Navajo wars, Bosnian Serb offensives in what is now Republic Srpska, and the deportation of Armenians during WWI - not to mention various USSR deportations to Siberia) but violate all international norms and laws.
Israel does indeed have a right to defend its interests, but historical evidence suggests that the path which their government appears to be heading does not necessary result in their best interests (or, may result in their security interests by way of violation of human rights, international law, and ethnic cleansing). Israel could plausibly argue that the Turkish / Greek swaps post WW1 and the Muslim / Hindi swaps post WWII provide a template for their ultimate safety (however, looking at the ongoing situation in Pakistan/Indian, the term 'safety' should be used lightly). Israel would also need to convince those who identify as Palestinian that they are really Egyptian and Jordanian and thus belong there (while Egypt and Jordan would be free to send over any remaining Jews in their territory).
Maybe the most succinct summary is simply that the most dangerous man is the one with nothing left to lose.